Crowley made an interesting statement back in 1919.

Let me seduce the boys of England and the oldsters may totter unconverted to their graves. Then these boys, become men, may bring about the new Heaven and the new Earth…but without an army I am useless…give me my army, young men; and we will sweep these dogs into the sea.”
–The World’s Tragedy, p. XXV

That army is being developed through public education. Ultimately, it cannot be successful, but it shall perhaps cause some suffering in the mean time.

Just some thoughts…

Sorry, it is late. And I seriously need sleep.

In 1960, Belgium declared them independent and left the Hutu in power. The Tutsis became a scapegoat for everything. They were limited in their ability to obtain an education and receive a job. The exiled Tutsi’s became organized and, perhaps with encouragement from recent pressure from the international community’s insistence on increased democracy, invaded Rwanda. The Hutus responded with wide scale genocide and civil war.

It cannot all be blamed on stirring up hate. It was already there…just as hate for the Jew was already present in Germany.

You can make a second point if you wish. But my post is not intended a criticism of the media. Gibson was wrong. He shouldn’t have been driving drunk. And he shouldn’t be making statements like that. Public shame is fine.

But really, what is the difference between saying that the Jews started all war and religion is the root of all evil? It is the same sort of sweeping attack made against people with no fact and only distaste for whatever it is they stand for. I only chose Bill Maher (who is not really a member of the media to begin with) because he so succinctly brought out the issue of religion. This view I first heard in a comment regarding Sam Harris’ book on another blog. Then on several atheist websites (most trying to separate themselves from him both for this statement and his views on torture). Then in a book review which I believe was done by the New York Times. And now I see it popping up in an entry by a comedian. Yet it seems to be an undercurrent behind a lot of social change in the US today.

I did not present Bill Maher as a member of the media and perhaps my transition was misunderstood. My criticism of the media stops with pointing out that Christianity is attacked without any outrage. The only member of the media I even mention is Barbara Walters.

Bill Maher’s statement is an example of an entertainer (as is Mel Gibson) saying essentially the same thing about relgion in general. Mel Gibson implies a problem in the accusatory way he asks the officer if he is a Jew. Maher informs us the problem with Gibson is his religion. Gibson states that all wars have been begun by the Jews. Maher states that religion is a disease.

The two statements are principally the same. Gibson spoke out in a drunken tirade. Maher is completely sober.

That is what I was getting at when I said you misunderstood me.

I did not declare religion to be on the wane. I implied that the eradication of it seems to be underway.

In reference to Martin Luther, I presume you are referring to his hymn,
“O great need,
God himself lies dead.
He has died on the cross
and has through this the kingdom of heaven
out of love gained for us.”

I don’t know your knowledge of the Christian religion, but we do believe Christ to be part of the trinity and that he physically died upon the cross. That is being expressed here in this hymn. Not the death of God in Nietzsche’s sense.

Either way, we as a culture seem to have proclaimed him to be dead, whether a new or old concept.

No, direct assault will not do away with religion. Neither will “hate speech.” You can read my response to anonymous to see what I think of any real attempt to eradicate religion. But that is not what I fear. My God is a bit stronger than that.

What I “fear” is that this concept which right now is quite vague will grow. More people will hold it without particularly examining what exactly it means. Gradually, those with strong religious views will be increasingly marginalized and viewed as nuts. And as responsible for the evils of the world. For hate. For war. For whatever, really. And there will always be a few nuts claiming to be of some sect or other to fuel the animosity.

And one day, perhaps, we will see in this country conditions like those I allude to in my other comment regarding N. Korea. Or China. Or the former Soviet Union where a real, bloody campaign was waged against religion.

And maybe not. Perhaps we have too much respect for life for that. But it begins as an idea. And I will confront that idea, whether it is directly opposed to Christianity or about Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca or whatever other religion you can think of.

Religion is not the problem. Sin is. And it lives in the heart of each of us.

Most of Nazi Germany did not desire what was happening. A good many tried not to know. Soldiers did as commanded because if they did not, it meant their lives or the lives of their families. I knew a man who fought for Hitler. He was 18 at the time and said the greatest desire of every soldier was to be captured by the Americans. They all knew treatment was better in their prison camps. The trick was getting captured without making your intentions so obvious that your commanding officer shot you. He succeeded and told me stories of his treatment in an American prison camp in England…and how grateful he was for it.

Mankind has always been “religious.” The earliest cave dwellers worshipped gods.

Mankind will always be “religious.” Only now we know the one true, almighty, and living God, and He is a jealous God who will not stand by helplessly and watch His creation annihilate itself for the sake of false gods. It’s a hard time for Christians right now, and it will get harder before it gets easier - extending even, perhaps soon, to those identifying marks in hand or forehead…

Do you think that maybe it’s time for the church to WAKE UP???

In His love,
Lady Gilligan

It is too simple-minded to say that ‘the speech came from the hate, not the other way around.’ It was well documented in the case of Rwanda that voices of right-wing radio fanned the racist fears and spread racial division among the populace where it had not existed before. The same sort of fear-spreading goes on all over the U.S. today, whether or not it is full-fledged hate speech.

As for the very large question of the end of religion, I would think that religious people should least fear those who openly call for its end or declare its irrelevance. Such posturing only comforts the religious and gives their religious fervor strength. (A case in point would be your blog.)

Religion will never be felled by open opposition. It is constructed in such a way as to feed off of such opposition.

Despite certain sociological statistics suggesting less participation in established religions, one would be foolish to declare religion on the wane. Moreover, one would be remiss not to notice that the “death of God” as a concept is not even secular in origin. It comes from Luther, who first discussed the idea as being the fruition of religion itself — a fruition without finality or end.

Finally, to say that I ‘missed the point’ is to disallow me the freedom of making my own point. My point (which you have not responded to) is that your strategy of characterizing “the media” was unfair. I did not say or imply that that was your ‘main point.’ But not speaking to your ‘main point’ does not necessarily disqualify mine.

Thanks for your thoughts.

If you define hate speech so narrowly as to only affect those you disagree with, you are perhaps correct. But for the religious, we cannot help but wonder exactly what is meant by such statements and this movement. And to what ends you are willing to go to bring about the end of religion.

I don’t throw around the term “hate speech.” And I didn’t accuse Bill Maher or anyone else of engaging in it.

I fail to see how laws against “hate speech” in Rwanda would have stopped the murder…it was yet another effect of a very old conflict. The hate brought about the speech, not the other way around.

It was not some spontaneous mob stirred up by a few Catholic bishops who had long lived with privilege under the Hutu government. The propoganda was chosen specifically to stir up already existing prejudices and hatred toward the Tutsis. Would an international law against hate crime have stopped Hitler? And the idea of Germany accepting such a law in that time is laughable.

There is a purpose to hate speech laws. Had they existed in a Christian country like Rwanda, many lives could have been spared a very horrible end. Bill Maher does not practice hate speech. He practices comedy. Mel Gibson did appear to exercise hate speech with respect to Jews. For that, he deserves public ridicule at the least.

Anonymous: “Railing against “religion” is very different from railing against ‘the Jews’”

No, it isn’t. To rant against Jews IS to rant against religion, in that their culture is COMPLETELY tied into their religion. You are looking for an excuse to continue your campaign against religion. Get over yourself.